Court Blocks California ‘Gender Secrecy Law’ and Affirms Parental Rights

by Jeff Johnston | June 23, 2026 | Education

California parents scored a big victory as a court blocked a law that kept school districts from reporting a child’s “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” to parents. 

America First Legal announced the decision on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach and parents, saying: 

[T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of California’s AB 1955 – a law that prohibits schools from disclosing information to parents about a child’s sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or gender expression, unless the child consents.
In other words, the State of California sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about “gender transitions” of their own children without the child’s consent.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1955, the dishonestly named “SAFETY Act” (Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act), in July 2024, as California Family Council (CFC) reported: 

This legislation, passed by the California Legislature and now signed into law, allows schools to withhold critical information from parents about their children’s health and welfare. The bill specifically prohibits school districts from enacting policies requiring parents to be notified if their child has asked everyone at school to use a different name and pronoun.

AB 1955 was predicated on the idea that children “have a constitutional right to privacy” thatforbade schools from requiring employees “to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.” 

Instead of affirming parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children, the bill created a “government-imposed wall of secrecy between parents and their children,” CFC stated.  

Shortly after Governor Newsom signed the “gender secrecy law,” the Huntington Beach City Council voted to prohibit school employees from hiding information about students from their parents. The council passed an ordinance declaring Huntington Beach a “Parents’ Right to Know City.”

The ordinance led to the legal challenge against California, with America First Legal and SchaerrJaffee LLP filing a lawsuit in September 2024. 

The Ninth Circuit twice denied motions for preliminary injunctions against the law, but in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, which reasserted parents’ rights over any school’s “transgender” parent exclusion policies, the city and parents asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider. 

The three-judge panel said the Mirabelli decision “affirmed the substantive due process right of parents ‘to direct the upbringing and education of their children’” which “includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health” (their emphasis). 

When dealing with serious mental health issues related to children’s identity and sexuality, the Ninth Circuit panel explained: 

As framed by the Court, the plaintiff parents thus have an affirmative constitutional right to be provided with any such information.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt applauded the decision, saying: 

For years, Sacramento told parents they had no right to know when their own child was living as a different sex at school. We said that was wrong and that it violated the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit now agrees.
AB 1955 was built to keep moms and dads in the dark. This ruling pulls back the curtain. No parent should have to learn from a stranger what the school already knew about their child.

American First Legal said this is their second appeals court-level win following Mirabelli. The nonprofit law firm pointed to a case in Pennsylvania where the Pine Richland School District secretly provided “taxpayer-funded ‘gender transition teams’ to students without parental notification or consent.” 

A mom sued, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, again citing Mirabelli, said she could pursue a damage case against the school district. 

The California case is City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom. 

The Pennsylvania case is Doe v. Pine Richland School District.

Related articles and resources: 

Barrett v. Kagan: Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Transgender’ School Policies

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Family Council

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum